Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005. We are speaking in the Main Committee under a false assumption. The opposition had agreed to the extension of the residential qualifying period from two to three years and, suddenly, at the last minute we have an extension from two to four years. The agreement to extend this period to three years was on the basis of security concerns originally brought to us in 2005 as the key component for this change and to have greater scrutiny and checks. We have had no reason offered as to why the three-year period has suddenly been extended to four years. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs have offered no evidence for the rationale. If there is a security rationale, perhaps it should be brought forward, but that has not been the case.

In Senate estimates last night, it was revealed that 117,208 people have been processed for citizenship using the old system since the government came to the ALP and said that, as a matter of security, we needed to increase the period from two to three years so there could be greater security checks and so that people could be excluded if they were deemed to be inappropriate. This was an agreement made not only by the opposition but also by COAG under a 10-point plan.

A year on, miraculously, those people have been allowed in. Obviously the security concern may have waned, but we have now gone from three to four years without a rationale except that we are now whipping up a frenzy. We are now going into election mode and we are finding the next dog whistle issue with which to lash out at the public to make them scared.

When I was running for parliament for the first time eight years ago, in 1998—taking from the Liberals a seat they held near and dear, which I have managed to hold on to for three terms—the term the government were using was that they were going ‘to govern for all of us’. This bill clearly indicates that they have given up that mantra and they do not want to govern for all of us. They just want to govern for a select few, for the few they deem worthy of becoming Australian citizens.

The other thing the Prime Minister was good at saying at that time was that he wanted us all to be ‘relaxed and comfortable’, that somehow under a Liberal government we would all be relaxed and comfortable, and then we progressed to being ‘alert but not alarmed’. Now we are all to be alarmed. We are all to be alarmist, we are all to be concerned and we are all to be fearful of the ‘other’—people who are not quite like us, who are somehow just a little different from us.

The latest hoo-ha has been over Sheikh Hilali’s comments, which I abhor and denounce. Somehow we did not abhor and denounce such comments when they were made by judges in our courts over rape trials. We did not abhor and denounce them as ‘other’. We said: ‘That’s just generational. Men of that generation see it like that.’ Now it is religious ideology to see it like that. Yes, those comments are abhorrent, but somehow we can wave them off with men, probably of the Prime Minister’s generation, by saying that that is generational. We did not abhor those comments. We did not demean the people who made them. When judges in courts were making the same sorts of comments about rape, we said, ‘Maybe they just need a bit of re-education.’ But things have progressed; things have changed. Instead, we now demonise and say that these people are ‘other’, that their religion is different, that it is not a faith, that it is not a belief and that it is not a system.

The only good faith and belief system nowadays is obviously Christianity! Coming from a Christian background, I find that really quite ridiculous. Nowadays I am told that the only true faith, the only faith which has a rationale and a moral basis is Christianity. Generally when I am sitting next to my Buddhist mayor or opposite my Hindu friend, I find it outrageous that people do not see that as demeaning to all these people who have come to our country, have embraced our country and have taken on the rights and responsibilities of our nation. I do not see how people cannot see through the rhetoric of all this and see how demeaning it is to those people and to those faiths that somehow the Sikhs in the temple down the road from me do not have values or morals. I find that really quite abhorrent, as do I find some of this bill abhorrent, although we will be supporting it in this place because it has beneficial parts that finally make up for some issues where people have been treated badly. I put on the record my reservation about the increase from two to four years.

I go to a lot of citizenship ceremonies within my electorate in the two municipalities of Monash and Whitehorse. They conduct fantastic ceremonies. They are always joyous occasions. In my electorate, anywhere between 30 and 36 per cent of the residents were born overseas. They come from a variety of backgrounds. We have traditional Greeks and Italians in fairly large numbers. We have a very large and growing Chinese community and Indochinese community who see themselves as Chinese but predominantly are from Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam. And we have a very large Sri Lankan community made up of two groups of Sri Lankans, which is always entertaining. This means I get to go to a lot of multicultural events, I get to eat a lot of good food and I get to do a lot of dancing, which is always fun. This is what has made our country great and vibrant.

So I was a little taken aback earlier this year, around Australia Day, when Peter Costello, the Treasurer, came out and slammed ‘mushy’ multiculturalism. He had a go at Johan Scheffer, one of our upper house state members. I read Johan’s speech and thought at the time that it sounded like 900 per cent of immigration speeches I have heard most people make. Why is the Treasurer suddenly finding this abhorrent? I am sure that if the Treasurer had turned up once or twice to the Boroondara citizenship ceremony prior to his comments on Australia Day he might have made similar comments to those of Johan Scheffer. I am damned sure that if we went through records we would find that he has.

To claim that current multiculturalism puts too much emphasis on telling migrants not to give up their culture rather than emphasising the Australian way of life is abhorrent. Every time I begin a citizenship ceremony speech I say, ‘Thank you for honouring us by becoming Australian citizens.’ What a thing to say to oneself: ‘I’m going to leave my country of birth. I’m going to travel to this foreign land, where I do not know anybody, where I do not know the language, where I do not know the culture, and I’m going to set up there and call it home. I am going to embrace and accept it so much that I’m going to become a citizen.’ I sit there thinking, ‘Could I leave my country of birth, go somewhere else and do that?’ The answer I always come up with is no. I think they are incredibly brave individuals.

At the end of a citizenship ceremony you give out your tree and you say, ‘Well done. Where have you come from? How long have you been here?’ The majority of new arrivals have been here for the two years. They are signing up, straightaway. They are not waiting. These people are from places like Afghanistan, Iran and the various Sudanese countries or they are Chinese people. When you ask people how long they have been here and they say, ‘Thirty-two years’—the best I had was 64—you will find they are Anglo-Saxons, predominantly from the UK. I said to one guy who had been here for 64 years, ‘Why now? Why after all this time?’ and he said, ‘Why not?’ They have not seen the urgency, because most of them can vote. Most of them have had all the rights conferred upon them because they were previously British citizens. It is our new arrivals who say: ‘Yes, this is my country. This is the country I am now adopting.’ Why are they all here? Universally it is the same answer: ‘A better life for our children.’

I recently held a skilled migrants forum. These were not people on 457 visas; they came in under the skilled migrant category because their qualifications are recognised and needed in this country. They came with up to $250,000 to demonstrate that they will be able to support themselves while here. The majority of these highly educated individuals, who have given up good lives in their country of birth to come here, predominantly to gain better opportunities for their children, have not been able to find work. In this land we are saying that we have a skills crisis and that we need people. We are embracing these people. So why can’t they find work?

The first reason given is, ‘You don’t have relevant experience.’ The accountants and the engineers in the room, who had all worked for global companies, say, ‘What is relevant experience? I’m applying again to work in a global company. The international accounting standards I have been using are used here.’ It gets down to inherent racism. A lot of these people are very dark. A lot of them are African. Their first language is English and, although they have an accent, it is not one that is difficult to understand. They put in their CVs. Half of these people have been to university in England and the US and have better qualifications than the people who are reviewing their CVs but who will not give them jobs. They struggle and end up downgrading their skills by taking lower jobs to get back into the sector.

The notion of ‘other’—that somehow we need to be wary of ‘other’—is whipping up anti-Muslim hysteria and sentiment. I concur with the comments of the former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser last night when he said that that is the card the Prime Minister is going to play at the next election: ‘We have had the asylum seeker issue, we have had the interest rate issue; now we have to find a scare campaign. Instead of going with decent policies to take us into the 22nd century, we are going to whip up hysteria. We are going to whip up the notion of other.’ I am surprised that in this debate the parliamentary secretary did not slide in that now we are going to have an English language test. That is coming. That will be the debate next year.

I go to a lot of these citizenship ceremonies as I say, and the majority of the people are struggling with English. A lot are not; a lot are proficient in English—it is their first language, even though they have come from fairly diverse backgrounds. But, if we are to encourage people to ensure that they have English when they take up their citizenship, surely we must be putting in the resources so they can actually do it. This government has in fact slashed money from English classes by $11 million. It has underfunded programs. It does not ensure that there are sufficient hours. It does not ensure that the classes are at flexible times and it does not provide child care.

A lot of people in my electorate would dearly love to go to the classes and be involved, but they cannot find adequate child care to go there. I have a four-year-old. He often comes into my office, and the work productivity of my office diminishes greatly, I can tell you. I do not know how a mum going to an English class with a child, or a lot of the grandparents who are here babysitting children, would actually learn anything in an English class if they are not provided with sufficient resources for child care. We find this over and over again.

The AMES in my area at Box Hill run a fantastic program. They run on an absolute shoestring and they provide classes that they are not even funded for, because a lot of volunteers give of their time graciously. If we want people to be proficient in English then we have to provide the resources so they can be.

The ALP first introduced English literacy classes way back when as an equity issue so that people would have greater access to work. My sister-in-law’s mother, who sadly left this world some time ago, lived and died in this country, raised her five children and worked here, and never spoke a word of English. Well, she had two or three words of English. I remember at my brother’s wedding, my nanna—who is of very old Irish background—said, ‘I can’t understand what she is saying.’ I said, ‘It’s not surprising; it’s all in Italian, Nanna.’ It is not really surprising. She lived, worked and raised her five children here, all in Italian, quite sufficiently, without any need of the English language because she went to a workplace where the lead hand could tell them everything. If they needed translation, one of her five girls did it.

That is not the best system to be involved in, but people manage. They still manage. In my electorate, as I say, I have a very large Chinese contingent. I go to many functions where I am dealing with individuals who have scant English, but they are still contributing valuably to this society. They are all struggling with English—they are all trying—but they are still contributing. There is somehow a false notion that you cannot get by without English. I think this is wrong, and generations of migrants have demonstrated it.

The other anomaly with this is the government saying, ‘We are eventually going to introduce this English language test to gain citizenship, but at the same time you can apply for a 457 visa to come here as a skilled migrant and there is no English requirement.’ Sorry? You can come here and work straightaway in a job and you do not have to have English but, at the same time, we are saying that, if you want to be a contributor to our society and become a citizen, you have to have English. Isn’t there just a little anomaly here? Isn’t there something fundamentally wrong?

Under the new bill, the period of residence qualification went from two to three years, but with the amendment at the last hour it has gone to four. We agreed to have this debate in the Main Committee because we were accepting of the three years, but somehow, under the radar, it has become four. And the rationale by the former speaker is that it is to allow residents a greater period of time to better understand Australian ways of life and values. I think, if you have determined you are going to come here, it is not about the period of time that you are here; it is the experience you have in this environment. Be it two years, be it three or be it four, it is what type of experience you have here. Most of these people do find a very good experience here. Some do not.

But what the government has not considered is what extending this period cuts people off from. It cuts people off from the ability to get a HECS place in university. It cuts people off from access to other services that they would be entitled to if they were a citizen. It cuts them off from the right to vote, the right to get an Australian passport, the right to serve on a jury, the right to enter the Public Service and the right to enter the armed forces. At a time when we are saying we need more people in the armed forces, we are going to make it more difficult. I do not understand the rationale behind it. I could understand if there were a genuine security concern and a need to have a greater check on individuals. Perhaps that is a good rationale, but I cannot see it.

One of the things that will be of concern is that this security check will look into convictions overseas. In my electorate of Chisholm I have a small Chilean community. Most of them have convictions from overseas under the previous regime of Pinochet. These people have now been recognised as heroes by the current government in Chile. They have actually been given a grant of money from this government. Would these people now be denied citizenship because they had a previous criminal record under a previous, harsh regime?

I have some Cambodians in my electorate and it is the same thing. Some of them have been held in detention. Whether it was legal or not is another thing of concern. So there are grey areas around that. Would someone now be told, ‘No, you did some time in jail’? ‘Well, I did because the dictator at the time didn’t like my political stance and they locked me up.’ Would that cut them off? This is a bit of a grey area and some of my constituents are concerned about it.

The other alarming fact is the bit of retrospectivity. People who are currently here and have been on permanent residency for two years will now have this waiting period extended. Who has gone out and advised them of that? I think this is fundamentally wrong and unfair. These are residents who have followed the rules as set out to them and who will now find, through no fault of their own, they will have to wait this extra period. Many permanent residents do put their plans on hold for things like getting married and for undergoing education. These will now be extended. There has been no great education campaign to ensure that these people will not be caught up in something that they do not know about and do not understand. When they go to lodge their citizenship forms they will discover that they somehow are now caught up in this mess.

Citizenship is a thing that most people do not take lightly. They go to the ceremony and they think about it. At a ceremony just last week there were some fantastic individuals. I asked the father in one family who was becoming a citizen, ‘How long?’ He said, ‘Oh, 32 years.’ I said, ‘Why after 32 years?’ and he said: ‘Well, I figure I’m staying now. The wife and the kids won’t let me go.’ He was given a beautiful certificate. His girls looked at it and said: ‘We don’t have anything like that. We’re Australians born and bred and we do not have a beautiful certificate.’ He was so proud and the girls thought: ‘Oh, we have sort of been dudded here. We haven’t got anything except our birth certificates.’ He had been here a long time, obviously married, had had his girls, been part of the community and was there accepting it.

There was another family who had been here 2½ years. They were from Malaysia. He had had come out and had subsequently brought out his wife and child. Again, they were just besotted by this experience and were full of joy and excitement. His wife had come in the full traditional dress and they were there making sure that they had the photo with the mayor and all the rest of it. People take this seriously. It is not an act taken lightly. It is not an act that these people just embark upon.

One of my staff, who is English and had been here for many years, prior to getting married a couple of years ago said: ‘Well, right, that’s it. I really should become an Australian citizen now. I intend on getting married and having children and they will all be Australian citizens.’ She agonised over that for quite some time. There was a great deal of correspondence going on with her parents back in England that somehow she was not renouncing them. I do not think people do this lightly. I do not think people enter into it as somehow this great thing that will now enable them to rip off the Australian tax system and get all these benefits. It is a significant step that people take. We should be honouring these people who choose to stay here, who choose to take these rights. This bill in some respects is demeaning some of these people and saying, ‘Somehow you are now other,’ and we are flagging the race card for the next election.

See this speech in context